BaptistLife.Com Forums.

The link Timothy posted to the Jeff Hood article on the Patheos blog isn't worth the waste of time to read. It's a demanding, my way or the highway diatribe full of hate and intolerance.

The Baptist News article points to two congregations, one in Little Rock, one in Washington, DC, who have decided to reconsider their support for CBF after this decision, after fully supporting the fellowship during years when the hiring policy prohibited any consideration of LGBTQ persons for employment. One of the churches, Calvary, had a former pastor who was openly critical of CBF congregations a few years back when some discussion about changing the hiring policy led to speculation that some conservative churches might leave.

It is my understanding that there were leaders from Welcoming and Affirming churches within CBF that were part of the Illumination Process, and the viewpoints and perspectives that were gathered assured the Welcoming and Affirming churches of virtually equal representation. Maybe being patient and waiting to hear from those leaders who advocate for complete inclusion of LGBTQ persons in CBF's hiring who were involved and consulted will lead to a higher level of understanding.

Sandy,

Certainly not all viewpoints are conciliatory. But I do think it is clear that push back is happening. And, if I were part of the LGBTQ community I think I would feel insulted by the power dynamics in this decision. If you want to be leadership, you can't be GLBT. If you want to just be a flunky, maybe we'll throw you a bone.

I know that isn't how it is intended. But from the outside, that is how it looks and how I think it is likely to look to folks involved with AWAB and other affirming group.

The UMC is struggling mightily to think about a compromise in this area ourselves. And the major thing to avoid is any kind of compromise that looks demeaning to someone on either side. So far, the UMC has handle sexuality issues poorly. I'm afraid it is very very hard for institutions, even very well meaning, to find a good compromise that allows for people to follow their conscience AND work together in an equal way.

I'd say that the two churches mentioned in the article would be "push back," but given the estimated size of the Welcoming and Affirming community within CBF, they are two churches on the far left fringe. The church in Little Rock appears to have more invested in CBF than Calvary in Washington, given all of their various affiliations.

Would CBF have been better off to simply not consider any change? It seems so, since these churches were supporting it, apparently indefinitely, without its having done anything to the hiring policy. Though I don't think comparisons to the civil rights movement are the same with regard to sexual orientation, that didn't happen the first time a compromise was proposed.

Christian groups set themselves up for "lose lose" propositions. Though the language gets inserted, there's really little consideration given to the fact that there is at least one other side, and that their arguments are equally legitimate, and factually supported. It's not hard to build a case for the sinful nature of homosexuality or gender identity issues from a Biblical perspective. Ninety percent of Christianity holds to those doctrines. The clergy-directed, mainline denominations that have enforced acceptance of gay and lesbian ordination, and assign clergy to churches have blown up over this issue, and the people who are departing, in significantly large numbers, aren't Baptist conservatives, they're moderate to liberal Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Lutherans, among others. Where do you draw the line between the continued existence, and well being, of your organization, and the importance of changing a policy to weigh in on a principle eighty or ninety percent of your people don't really support or agree with?

Sandy has always been pretty solid in looking at CBF stuff. Dave put the best look on it. I'd guess that Sandy is going to be right that "you move a little bit" get comfortable there, and then "go again." Half now, half later. Does anyone in the CBF expect that there is any direction here other than more inclusion, etc.?

I sympathize with my CBF friends over the issue. How big a deal would it be to go all the way now? Is there that much revenue at stake?

The honest answer about finance is that no one fully knows. Scenarios have been run that were shared with the Governing Board and with Missions and Ministries Councils, but there are a great many variables in each scenario, so I would not share them. No decision is easy.

Ed, it's probably true that I represent the East Coast establishment mold of CBF, but I have talked with folks from Texas, from CBF West, from Florida, and Alabama in this, and we all seemed in basically the same place. No decision is perfect, and in this one, I can see many sides that might have tilted the process in slightly different ways. As to what the future holds, I do not see this as fitting the famous SBC "slippery slope" argument. That was never true in the 1960's and 1970's and still isn't, but it was a favorite of the Pressler/Patterson coalition. In a world of divided viewpoints, it's tough to make decisions at don't have major pressure points in them.

Ed: Sandy you did not address, let alone answer his question about where you got the 90% figure.

Ed: Thank you Sandy or disproving William's comment about how "Solid" you have been about "CBF stuff".

And, of course, the RCC does NOT ordain lesbians, but their lesbian orientation is not the reason. I'm talking here about sacerdotal ordination. I don't know if they ritual that turns a nun into a mother superior is considered ordination, but if it is then the RCC does probably ordain lesbians, and gay men, to that sort of office.